Steve Bonine wrote:
I would like to see other opinions on this issue, which came up in
passing in another group.

One of the participants there mentioned that a ham radio license has
been added as an employment condition for some of their professional
responders. Presumably the motivation is based on a desire to have a
known population of people who can use ham radio technology in a
disaster if nothing else is working.

I have two questions on this.

Is this a common situation? I hadn't heard of a formal requirement
until it was mentioned on the other forum, but a couple more people came
forward and said that it was in place in their area. Is it happening in
your area?

Not that I know of.

Do you think it's a good idea?

I wouldn't mind having a job that required me to be a ham, but being
required to have a ham license in addition to being trained for some
other field does, as others have pointed out, risk degrading the quality
of applicant.

I think what the emcomm managers _really_ want is a commercially
licensed emergency radio technician and communicator, but there's no
license for that. The problem with requiring a ham license is that
there's so much variability in the training and currency of hams, not to
mention their physical condition, that I don't think that having a ham
license is a reliable indicator of emcomm proficiency.

After all, _any_ municipal employee can be trained to operate a two-way
radio: what's required in an emergency is guys that can operate the
radio _and_ put up the antenna _and_ figure out which rigs can share a
power supply _and_ figure out which existing antennas are "close enough"
for the frequency needed _and_ get a CD-badged Gooneybox to communicate
with an FM radio. Long story short, I think requiring a ham license
involves an assumption that anyone with a license knows how to operate
and improvise in an emergency, and that's not true.

FWIW. YMMV.

73, Bill W1AC
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)